> I'm surprised someone thinks this. To me most of it looks obviously dated.
I think this is mostly in the eye of the beholder. Is there really much difference in the use of materials and form/function? I'd argue it's a minor aesthetic difference.
Also, I'd also argue that a chair like this is postmodern in the same way as designing a server case out of wood would be: Nostalgia for wood and desire for modern structure, where other materials would do a far better job.
It's very practical, relatively cheap, reasonably strong, easy to process, and easy to recycle. For instance, IKEA which is well-known for its expressly inexpensive and minimalist furniture offers a lot of wooden furniture, kids toys, etc.
Also, every day I take a few NYC subway trains. Each car has its electric power collector mounted on a wooden plank. This is probably done because of practical reasons (wood is cheap, strong, and is a good electric insulator), not nostalgic.
The Noguchi table and the Eames plywood chair in the "Modern Furniture" article you linked to would also be regarded as midcentury modern. (And check out the Noguchi "cloud" sofa: http://observer.com/2014/12/the-six-figure-sofa-mid-century-...). If this is kitsch, count me in.
In other words: It's a slippery slope from what you might call "high modernism" (e.g., Bauhaus) to midcentury modern. Trying to characterize one as pure and one as consumerist seems like a category error -- these adjectives pertain more to specific pieces or arrangements than to the whole movement.
Similarly, arguing about whether these pieces are "dated" seems beside the point. The works were a product of their time. Some of them continue to impress.
Another point of reference regarding the idiosyncratic ways that modernism presented itself is Alvar Aalto, the Finnish architect and designer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Aalto). His furniture and interiors would also be regarded as modernist, and (being Finnish) very centered around wood. Some of it might look "spindly and kitschy", especially depending on how it is arranged in a room. But check out http://www.archdaily.com/85390/ad-classics-villa-mairea-alva.... Again, count me in.
Incidentally, one of the motivations behind the Bauhaus movement was to move against art nouveau's style that was impossible to mass produce. So they started using material that was easily available and designed furniture that could potentially be mass produced. See these for example:
I'm surprised someone thinks this. To me most of it looks obviously dated, and very much a spindly and kitschy consumer product of Cold War suburbia.
It has very little of the purity of real modernism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_furniture
As for Stein - not everyone was impressed by her contribution:
http://www.romanianculture.org/downloads/testimony_against_g...